The MPLS WG Archive

["Adrian Farrel" <afarrel@movaz.com>]

Hi,
You can certainly implement the TE MIB at transit nodes.
It makes very good sense for reading about tunnels that transit an LSR.
It might make sense in some implementations to allow deletion of tunnels from
non-ingress nodes.
It makes no sense for attempting to create tunnels from non-ingress nodes (in
today's signaling protocols).

You are correct that some parameters shown at the ingress are not signaled and
so cannot be known at non-ingress nodes. On the whole, these parameters are
concerned with selecting which of a set of tunnels configured at the ingress
should be signaled, so it follows that at non-ingress nodes you only know about
those that were actually signaled.

Regards,
Adrian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yuan Gu" <yuangu@ipinfusion.com>
To: <mpls@UU.NET>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 6:58 PM
Subject: support mpls-te-mib in transit and tail points.


> Hi:
>
> In mpls-te-mib mplsTunnelTable, the object mplsTunnelRole has three
> values -- head, transit and tail. Does that mean beside ingress node, TE
> mib can also be supported in transit and egress node? If yes, mean while
> this table allows creating new tunnel, updating and remove existing
> tunnel. Is that to say a tunnel can be updated or removed from
> transit/egress node (even created)? And one more thing is in the transit
> case, how do you provide some TE parameters such as
> mplsTunnelPrimaryInstance because transit node might not know it?
>
> Thanks for your clearify.
>
> Regards!
> Yuan
>